fossa_get_cli_organization

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by enumerating exactly what data is reported (first-party scans, container scans, path dependencies, snippet retention, Free vs Premium) and highlighting the 403-avoidance behavior, which is valuable for agent planning.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The two-paragraph description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes either to scope or usage context, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only configuration lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns at a high level, why it matters, and how to use it effectively, leaving no operational gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed—the empty schema leaves nothing to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads the organization's CLI capabilities and defaults, including subscription level and supported scan types. It specifies the resource ('organization's CLI capabilities') and verb ('Read'), and is distinct from all sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit situational guidance: 'This is the fastest way to find out whether a feature is even available before a tool call fails with a 403.' It tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (pre-flight check) and lists the specific features it covers, making the use case unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.